March 19th, 2013

Telegraph Deputy Editor: Thanks But No Thanks

Deputy Editor of the Telegraph, Ben Brogan, though writing in a personal capacity, has said this morning:

“I’ve concluded that we should note the outcome, thank the politicians for their engagement, and quietly but firmly decline to take part. I suspect time will be allowed to let the dust settle, but it is far from certain that this scheme will fly.”

The clearest sign yet that at least one major media organisation is planning on thumbing their nose at the whole thing.


  1. 1
    alanG says:

    Does the fact that they don’t like the Charter mean it’s a good’un?

  2. 2
    Kronos says:

    As opposed to a political hack group writing it and making a good job of it

  3. 3
    Four Blowjobs and a Career-death says:

    Do you think anything dreamed-up by a failed actor who likes getting his little todger sucked-off by a 2-bit whore in a seedy alleyway is going to have any merit whatsoever?

  4. 4
    Hugh Grant says:

    Is Brogan allowed to write that under the new laws?

  5. 5
    Welsh activist. says:

    Censorship has begun, on CON home no less, ironic or what.

  6. 6
    childoforwell says:

    Plainly re-education camps will be required to tackle this dangerous, bourgeois and independent thinking.

  7. 7
    Aussie Bogan says:

    You don’t mess with Benny Brogan, journalism’s cross between Don Logan and Hulk Hogan.

  8. 8
    Red Alert says:

    In other words Labour’s “One nation” plan where nobody is allowed to think differently.

  9. 9
    Ed Balls says:

    Do as ve say!

  10. 10
    Streets of Shame says:

    She’s a great writer though.

  11. 11
    Casual Observer says:

    There is no reason to sign up, provided the publications obey the rules and don’t publish dubious stuff.

    T’Graph were stitched up over the Hodge thing last year, other than that they have clean record.

    Any idea yet what the costs to the industry are going to be for those who do sign up, and what the cost to the tax payer is as well ?

  12. 12
    who why what where when says:

    Thank God there are some media organisations prepared to stand up against this attempt at state control.

    Any newspaper signing up to the Hacked Off charter will lose all credibility.

    How can readers have any confidence that what they’re reading is totally independent and hasn’t been passed by this Ministry of Truth?

  13. 13
    eh? says:

    Why should I have to pay for an unelected quango made up of people with no background in news deciding what I’m allowed to read?

  14. 14
    The Real World says:

    In the spirit of openness can someone from the poor, downtrodden press list 5 stories from the last 5 years that wouldn’t have been printed if this “Royal Charter” was in place then? Please give your reasons.

  15. 15
    Anonymous says:

    Are you saying that a Chris Huhne type figure, who denied for months any wrongdoing would not have had a word with his mates he helped get onto the panel and kill the story as soon as it appeared, his denials enough to end the evil press intrusion, as all the great and good say he is an exemplary man of good character and saintly intent, who seeks nothing more than to represent his constituents who should be considered above such reproach. A Huhne like figure would knw if he held out long enough under the new regulations he could well cripple the news outlet before the story got too big for the police to ignore. The actual Huhne figure was not even approached by the police until the press exerted a force majeur of opinion.

    Are you saying the Hamiltons would not have poured over ever comma of the legislation and interpreted it their way to have saved themselves, and at the beginning of that investigation, they too were siupported by the great and good with effusive character references. Do I need to continue or do you accept that our political class are indeed now above reproach and nothing is lurking in their closets ?

  16. 16
    The Real World says:

    So you are advancing that, without evidence, the press should keep publically pursuing an individual. If they know evidence then the press can use it. If they don’t have evidence they can keep looking but wait until they get the evidence before going public. Huhne type figures will usually deny an accusation so nothing new there. They will have words with their chums anyway. Nothing new there. If there is evidence it should go to the police.

    Commas in leglislation are always pored over by those with something to hide if they are accused. Again evidence needs to exist should go to the police.

    And I don’t accept that the political class are above reproach, quite the opposite. If there is evidence of stuff lurking in their closets then it should be used if illegal or it demonstrates hypocrisy, but the press have to get it right ie it has to be true.

    And the press should also kill stories when they know they are wrong. They could have killed the McAlpine story ages ago just by showing a photo to the the real perpetrator’s victim.

  17. 17
    Casual Observer says:

    I do not suggest you do.

    But that will be the next step when the majority of the press relocate off shore and refuse to sign up. Just thinking inside the box.

  18. 18
    Casual Observer says:

    The Hamilton’s were set up, but did not call for press regulation when they eventually cleared their names. Cl!fford / Graun!ad smears.

    Huhne example is relevant.

  19. 19
    Anonymous says:

    Brogan is right. The scheme will only fly by building a fuck off great wall of china.

  20. 20

    Press of the freedom?

  21. 21
    Anonymous says:

    One Nation…………eerily like EU

  22. 22
    Anonymous says:

    Keep hounding David Nicholson while you are still free to do so!

  23. 23

    The McAlpine story was brought to the BBC by a group of left wing journalists, backed by the Hacked Off Campaign, supposedly dedicated to ethical journalism. They are the ones who couldn’t be bothered to research their story because it played to their prejudices about Conservative politicians and Maggie Thatcher. They were so eager to embarrass the Tories – and Maggie Thatcher in particular – that they took the allegations on face value.

    Don’t blame the Press for that debacle, Real World, blame “ethical” journalism.

  24. 24
    The Real World says:

    Just do a simple internet search for 2005 using google and you’ll find accusations. If you are trying to tell me this was first raised by BBC journalists 18 months ago and the press knew nothing about it back in 2005 then the press were not doing their job.

Media Reader

London Live to Cut 20 Staff to Buy in More Content | Press Gazette
Telegraph Revealed Auschwitz 3 Years Before Liberation | Telegraph
Mirror Hacking: 50 Legal Action Claims | Press Gazette
45 Mirror Group Stories Linked to Phone-Hacking | Press Gazette
We Must Not Call Charlie Hebdo Killers ‘terrorists’ | Telegraph
Page 3 and the Art of the Self-Pity Statement | Guardian
Here is What a 7 Way Debate Sounds Like | BBC
Poll: Sun Readers Want Page 3 to Stay | Business Insider
The Sun: An Apology | Press Gazette
More Women Prosecuted For Telly Tax | Mail
Je Suis Page 3 | Toby Young

Rising Stars
Find out more about PLMR AD-MS

Alan Milburn says Labour’s scaremongering campaign for an unreformed NHS will not win election…

“It would be a fatal mistake, in my view, for Labour to go into this election looking as though it is the party that would better resource the National Health Service but not necessarily put its foot to the floor when it comes to reforming. Look, reforms are not easy, but the Labour Party is not a conservative party. It should be about moving things forward not preserving them in aspic. You have got a pale imitation actually of the 1992 general election campaign, and maybe it will have the same outcome. I don’t know.”

Tip off Guido
Web Guido's Archives

Subscribe me to:


AddThis Feed Button

Guido Reads

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,716 other followers